Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 9:47 pm Post subject: One Good Thing About Living In Michigan

We're a democratic state, because of the unions mostly... but nevertheless I really like Sander Levin, one of our representatives in the house. I had attached my name a bit back to a petition that was against using nuclear weapons to go after Iran. It was sent to him, and this week I received in the mail, a letter from him.

Here's the letter:

Quote:

Dear Ms. Jennifer *omitted*:

I recently received a petition bearing your name urging the President and Congress to rule out attacking Iran with nuclear weapons. Your views are important to me.

The Bush Administration's recent saber rattling with respect to Iran has been counterproductive in terms of the stated goal of convincing the government of Iran to back away from its nuclear program. On the contrary, the Administration's actions appear to have had precisely the opposite effect and have also served to raise oil and gasoline prices to record levels.

As you know, there have been reports in the media that the Administration may be considering the use of tactical "bunker-busting" nuclear weapons against suspected sites in Iran. I have long maintained that the use of tactical nuclear weapons would mark a dramatic change in the United States policy and would undermine our non-proliferation policies around the globe. Further, I have strongly opposed the Administration's efforts to develop new nuclear bunker-busting weapons.

I was grateful that many people also included comments with their petitions. A number of people were critical of the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq. Still others expressed concern over the Administration's stated doctrine of preemptive attack. I very much agree with these comments, particularly with regard to the Administration's misguided notion of preemptive strike where the U.S. could act alone when it determined that there was a threat, even if that threat did not pose an imminent danger to the United States.

On a related matter, the House recently debated a divisive resolution on Iraq [H. Res. 861] written by the House Republican Leadership. In my remarks, I stated that the resolution represented a seal of approval of the Bush Administration's approach in Iraq, and that I opposed it for that reason. I also said that it is essential that we change course in Iraq, not simply stay the course, and adopt policies that accelerate the reduction of American military involvement in Iraq. I have enclosed a copy of my full remarks for your review. Unfortunately, the House adopted the resolution on a vote of 256 to 153.

I hope this information is helpful. Thank you again for giving me the benefit of your views.

Sincerely,

Sandy Levin
Sander M. Levin
Member of Congress

I encourage you to visit my website at www.house.gov/levin to sign up for my e-newsletter or for information on my work in Congress.

Here's his enclosed remarks:

Quote:

REP. LEVIN'S REMARKS ON HOUSE RESOLUTION 861
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THAT THE UNITED STATES WILL PREVAIL IN THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR
(House of Representatives - June 16, 2006)

Mr. LEVIN - Mr. Speaker, the rationale for the Bush Administration's going to war in Iraq has been one of shifting sands.

The first reason given for the action in Iraq was that it was necessary because Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be wrong. Then the rationale was the threat of nuclear weapons from Iraq's alleged purchase of uranium from Africa, which also was not true and was seriously questioned within the Bush Administration before the military action.

Then it was said that there was a linkage between the Iraqi regime and the perpetrators of 9/11, a claim that has never been found to be true. The evidence is that al Qaeda did not have a presence in Iraq until after the President ordered military action in Iraq.

The Republicans try to paint Democratic opposition to the Administration's Iraq policies as a reflection of refusal to use force. That is absolutely not true. It is a question of under what conditions and circumstances. That was at the heart of the debate over Iraq before the action was taken.

In 2002, a majority of Democrats voted for an alternative resolution allowing the President to undertake military force in Iraq, but only after first attempting a multilateral approach to dealing with Saddam Hussein through the Security Council, just as the first President Bush did in 1991. What Democrats rejected was implementation of an approach emphasizing the use of unilateral, pre-emptive military action by the U.S.

That approach has had a number of consequences: terminating inspections before the inspectors could fully disclose that there were no WMD; the twisting of truth about the lack of an Iraqi program of developing nuclear weapons and the lack of a connection between the Iraqi Government and 9/11; a belief that military action would not only be easy to begin with, but would lead to rapid development of a democracy in Iraq; inadequate equipment to safeguard our troops from the dire consequences of guerilla and radical insurgent attacks; and a vast and deep distrust of our Nation among peoples of the Middle East, Europe, and elsewhere.

The situation in Iraq is not getting better. It's getting worse. As of today, 2,500 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Nearly 18,000 or our soldiers have been wounded. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died. Iraq is teetering on the brink of a full-fledged civil war. Sectarian killings have risen rapidly.

This resolution represents a seal of approval of the Bush Administration's approach to Iraq. I oppose it. It is essential that we change the course, not simply stay the course, and adopt policies that heighten the pressure to bring about that change and accelerate the reduction of American military involvement in Iraq.

I think I'll choose "industrialized Siberia" (although it's not) over a republican state that once elected Dubyah as their governor. =D_________________I'm doing the twitter thing; you should stalk/follow me: http://twitter.com/sillygurlroo